1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is directed to a system and method for systems-related problem formulation, analysis and solution. More specifically, the instant invention is directed to a system and method for formulating, analyzing and solving system-related problems based on functional descriptions of such systems.
2. Background of the Related Art
Methods for solving systems-related problems are well known in the art. These include methods based on Genrich Altschuller's “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving”, known generally by its Russian acronym, “TRIZ”.
Methodologies based on classical TRIZ are difficult to apply because they do not readily identify the problems to be solved for complex systems. Certain patents attempt to solve such shortcomings. U.S. Pat. No. 5,581,663, for example, provides a graph based implementation which provides some problem identification functionality for complex systems.
Prior art systems such as that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,581,663 read system description and/or problem situation description in the form shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1(Statement1) is required for (Statement2).(Statement1) causes (Statement3).This text may be understood as comprising nodes and node-links forming a graph. As the result, these systems build graphs whose nodes are the arbitrary user statements, called “functions,” with arcs directed between such nodes.
Originally, graphs included only three types of links, namely, “is required for”, “causes”, and “eliminates” links. Subsequently, other solutions introduced other link types while generally remaining within the graph model.
After building graphs from user input (i.e., user text), prior art systems apply certain structural checks to the graphs such as incoming links compatibility, loop identification, “unconnected islands” identification, and the like, as will be readily understood by those of skill in the art. Upon concluding such structural checks, these systems formulate verbose renderings for each node of the graph; that is, they constructed word-based formulations for each graph node. This formulation takes into account the types of links of each node as well as the nodes in the immediate vicinity. For example, for the description of Table 1 above, the wordings would be:
TABLE 2Find a way to eliminate (Statement3) under the condition of(Statement1).Find an alternative way of (Statement1) that provides (Statement2)and does not cause (Statement3).Find a way to provide (Statement2) that does not require(Statement1).This graph based implementation, however, is static in nature, having no provision for hypothetical conditions, or “would-be” values at the nodes of the graph.
In addition to the undesirable static nature of the prior art graph based implementation, this approach does not differentiate between relevant and irrelevant conditions, as illustrated by the following example. One first considers the problem description of Table 3, below.
TABLE 3(A) is required for (B).(B) is required for (C).(C) is required for (D).(D) is required for (E).(D) causes (F).The “real” problem inherent in the instant example is located somewhere between the nodes (D), (E), and (F). However, the generated wordings would include all the “functions” in the chain, as depicted in Table 4, below.
TABLE 4Find a way to eliminate (F) under the condition of (D).Find alternative way of (D) that provides (E) and does not cause (F).Find a way to provide (E) that does not require (D).Find a way to provide (D) that does not require (C).Find a way to provide (C) that does not require (B).Find a way to provide (B) that does not require (A).Thus, the verbose description of the graph inefficiently includes all “functions” and does not provide any focusing of an analyst's attention to the “functions” deserving of heightened scrutiny or additional analysis.
Another problem which the prior art does not address is the problem of “multi-path” cause-effect chains, such as the one illustrated in Table 5, below.
TABLE 5Chain 1:(A) is required for (X).(A) causes (A1).(A1) causes (A2).(A2) causes (Y).Chain 2:(A) causes (B1).(B1) causes (B2).(B2) causes (Y).In this graph, to eliminate (Y), one must eliminate both chains at the same time, i.e., chain (A)-(A1)-(A2)-(Y) and chain (A)-(B1)-(B2)-(Y). The prior art graph-based formulator would not recognize this multi-path issue, however, because the nature of its formulation is “local” to one node. Thus, the prior art graph-based formulator would produce the verbose wordings for each node independently.
A final problem left unaddressed by the prior art is that of analysis of alternative chains, as illustrated in Tables 6 and 7.
TABLE 6(Flammable gas) causes (Explosion) [(A) causes (X)].(Electrical spark) causes (Explosion) [(B) causes (X)].
TABLE 7(Bacteria in the air) causes (Damage of medication) [(A) causes (X)](Overheat of medication) causes (Damage of medication) [(B) causes(X)].In the graph of Table 6, one might state the problem as “Find a way to eliminate (Explosion) under the condition of (Flammable gas) and (Electrical spark).” Importantly, the two functions (i.e., “A” and “B”) must both be present to cause the outcome (i.e., “X”). By contrast, one readily sees that the graph illustrated in Table 7 models a system in which the presence of either function causes the outcome (i.e., either “A” or “B” causes “X”). The prior art cannot express such alternatives.
It is therefore desirable to have a system for formulating, analyzing and solving system-related problems that allows for “would-be,” non-static values at its nodes. It is further desirable to have a system for analyzing and solving system-related problems capable of identifying “functions” deserving of heightened scrutiny or additional analysis. It is also desirable to have a system for analyzing and solving system-related problems having multi-path cause-effects. Finally, it is desirable to have a system capable of analyzing alternative function chains.